Re: FW: News Media and How to Deceive

[Doug Wells <wells@physics.isu.edu>]

Ruth:

Evidently I unwittingly insulted many current or former educators.    I apologize
for failing to give credit to the many well-educated and talented teachers that are
part of the education system.   That said, it's well known that K-12 teachers are
poorly compensated for their work (something that University professors share with
them).  It's also documented that only approximately 50% of High School physics
teachers have a degree in physics.  The lack of education success of American
students in physics (or other sciences), when compared to other nations is also well
documented.  Part of this lack of success is due (I claim) to unqualified teachers.
In fact, the respondants who felt offended by my e-mail are good examples because
they
left the teaching profession to seek employment at a pay-scale that is commensurate
with their expertise.  Unfortunately, the odds are approximately 50/50 that their
replacement did not have the education that they had.  I think that much of this
situation could be improved if (a) scientists spent more time with teachers, schools
and school boards (this is difficult to achieve because most people already have a
pretty full life, but perhaps if they did so as part of their contribution to their
childrens education???) and (b) High School teachers were paid more (this is
unlikely to happen in the near future as long as high school athletics, for example,
has much greater community interest and support than high school academics).

Doug

Ruth Weiner wrote:

> Doug,
>
> I believe that you are correct in your observations regarding how the news media
> operates.  Many individuals are money oriented.  But, being a former public
> school teacher I take offense at your last point.
>
>      The discussion on science teaching is illuminating but merits some
>      comment.  I, too, spent several years teaching math and chemistry in
>      high school.  moreover, I tutored students in the Master of Arts in
>      teaching program.
>
>      One reason for the emphasis on criticism of science in the K-12 grades
>      is that science and math, as well as foreign languages, are generally
>      not subjects that even a bright student can pick up on his or her own
>      by reading, and differ in this way from, say, English and history. So
>      science, math, and language TEACHING are relatively more critical to
>      the student's knowledge base. Also, K-12 science teaching tends to
>      trendiness and should, indeed must, concentrate on basics.  I see no
>      point in trying to teach high school students risk analysis or
>      thermodynamics.  They are generally not mature enough to understand
>      these subjects (even college freshmen aren't, in my experience).  Give
>      high-school graduates instead a good grounding in basic physics,
>      chemistry, and biology, and see that they have really excellent
>      algebra skills and understand the scientific method.
>
>      A problem is that the more basic and fundamental the course one
>      teaches, the more one has to know about the subject in order to make
>      it understandable.  Teaching freshman chemistry required (for me) a
>      much better and broader understanding of chemistry than teaching
>      quantum chemistry to graduate students who had the fundamental
>      knowledge to build on.  I am at a loss to suggest resolution to this
>      particular dilemma at the K-12 level.
>
>      Clearly only my own opinion.
>
>      Ruth Weiner
>      rfweine@sandia.gov
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html



************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html